Telechat Review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-behave-requirements-update-07
review-ietf-tsvwg-behave-requirements-update-07-genart-telechat-romascanu-2016-02-29-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-behave-requirements-update
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2016-03-01
Requested 2016-02-18
Draft last updated 2016-02-29
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -06 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -07 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -06 by Ben Laurie (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -06 by Mahesh Jethanandani (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Dan Romascanu
State Completed
Review review-ietf-tsvwg-behave-requirements-update-07-genart-telechat-romascanu-2016-02-29
Reviewed rev. 07 (document currently at 08)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2016-02-29

Review
review-ietf-tsvwg-behave-requirements-update-07-genart-telechat-romascanu-2016-02-29






Thank you for the quick update. All the (minor) issues that I raised were addressed. From the Gen-ART point of view this document is ready.





 




Regards,




 




Dan




 




 













From:

 mohamed.boucadair at orange.com [mailto:mohamed.boucadair at orange.com]





Sent:

 Tuesday, February 16, 2016 11:04 AM




To:

 Romascanu, Dan (Dan); General Area Review Team




Cc:

 draft-ietf-tsvwg-behave-requirements-update.all at tools.ietf.org




Subject:

 RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-behave-requirements-update










 




Hi Dan,





 




FWIW, an updated version integrating your comments is available online:





 




URL:           



https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tsvwg-behave-requirements-update-07.txt







Status:         

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-behave-requirements-update/







Htmlized:      



https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-behave-requirements-update-07

 







Diff:          



https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-tsvwg-behave-requirements-update-07







 




Thank you.




 




Cheers,




Med




 













De :

 Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [

mailto:dromasca at avaya.com

]





Envoyé :

 lundi 15 février 2016 17:31




À :

 BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; General Area Review Team




Cc :

 


draft-ietf-tsvwg-behave-requirements-update.all at tools.ietf.org




Objet :

 RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-behave-requirements-update










 




Hi Med,




 




Thank you for the quick answer and for addressing my comments. Your suggestions are fine with me.





 




Regards,




 




Dan




 




 













From:




mohamed.boucadair at orange.com

 [

mailto:mohamed.boucadair at orange.com

]





Sent:

 Monday, February 15, 2016 6:29 PM




To:

 Romascanu, Dan (Dan); General Area Review Team




Cc:

 


draft-ietf-tsvwg-behave-requirements-update.all at tools.ietf.org




Subject:

 RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-behave-requirements-update










 




Hi Dan,





 




Thank you for the review.





 




Please see inline.





 




Cheers,




Med




 













De :

 Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [

mailto:dromasca at avaya.com

]





Envoyé :

 lundi 15 février 2016 17:18




À :

 General Area Review Team




Cc :

 


draft-ietf-tsvwg-behave-requirements-update.all at tools.ietf.org




Objet :

 Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-behave-requirements-update










 




I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments.




 




For more information, please see the FAQ at




 




< 


http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>




 




Document:  draft-ietf-tsvwg-behave-requirements-update-06




Reviewer: Dan Romascanu




Review Date: 2/15/16




IETF LC End Date: 2/16/16




IESG Telechat date: 




 




Summary: This document is ready with minor issues. 




 




Major issues:




 




None




 




Minor issues:




 







1.

      


The text in the second and third paragraphs in section 2.2 is rather confusing. Do these belong to updates, or should they be under Notes?





 







Ø

 


Admittedly, the NAT has to verify whether received TCP RST packets belong to a connection. This verification check is required to avoid off-path attacks.




 







Ø

 


If the NAT removes immediately the NAT mapping upon receipt of a TCP RST message, stale connections may be maintained by endpoints if the first RST message is lost between the NAT and the recipient.




 




If they belong to Updates ‘Admittedly’ needs to be dropped, ‘has to verify’ becomes ‘SHOULD verify’, etc.





Else, if these are rather notes they should be labeled Notes or Clarification




 




[Med] These are notes. What about making this change?




 




OLD:





 




      Admittedly, the NAT has to verify whether received TCP RST packets




      belong to a connection.  This verification check is required to




      avoid off-path attacks.




 




      If the NAT removes immediately the NAT mapping upon receipt of a




      TCP RST message, stale connections may be maintained by endpoints




      if the first RST message is lost between the NAT and the




     


recipient.




 




NEW:




 




      Notes: 




      *   Admittedly, the NAT has to verify whether received TCP RST packets




      belong to a connection.  This verification check is required to




      avoid off-path attacks.




 




      * If the NAT removes immediately the NAT mapping upon receipt of a




      TCP RST message, stale connections may be maintained by endpoints




      if the first RST message is lost between the NAT and the




      

recipient.




 




 




 







2.

      


In section 5: 




 







Ø

 


This update is compliant with the stateful NAT64 [RFC6146] that clearly specifies three binding information bases (TCP, UDP, ICMP).




 




As the focus of this document is NAT44, I do not believe that ‘compliant’ is the right word. Probably ‘consistent’ would be more appropriate.




 




[Med] I changed it to “consistent” in my local copy. Thank you for catching this.




 







3.

      


EIF is never expanded




[Med] Fixed.





 




Nits/editorial comments:




 




None.